tv [untitled] September 15, 2010 4:30pm-5:00pm PST
owners. in the filings you have there, there are seven or eight other police service contracts in other cities in municipalities in the state of california that have that the set. according to the city attorney's office of san francisco, if he can charge that the, everyone can charge that the in a private contract. -- if he can charge that fee, everyone can charge that fee in a private contract. commissioner garcia: i do not think it would serve anyone if we were to go over each point raised by the protesters of the findings or the appellant. let us back up a little bit and i will address at the comment made by the sergeant. the reason i have asked that we
hold over this matter and come back at it is due in part to a situation created by the appellant. when findings are submitted, each side has an opportunity and a right to submit in writing, whether or not they agree with that. it is an imposition on this commission because i cannot follow each and every point and bounced it off of what the findings say. the appellant put me at a serious disadvantage. we do not interrupt someone. if they stick their problem and i get to ask what the problem is, maybe we could have gone at it. but to have done that would have constituted or been tantamount to a rehearing. this is not a rehearing.
these are findings. there are some issues raised. i am going to address at least two of them. new material is introduced. i was confused by that. what new material? the new material as stated by the sergeant had to do with the fact that after the march 2010 hearing, when it came before this board, there were new materials that had not been in the hearing. as stated by the sergeant, this is de novo. it is in their right to bring up everything they want. it is going to come up again tonight in a later case. beyond that, a brief was presented to the appellant. it might be knew when he gets the brief. it is not new when he shows up here. do not do that. he had an opportunity to respond
in writing to the new material. the other thing i am going to address has to do with the fact that we did, in a way, do something that someone looking at it, buwould say that is questionable behavior. a lot of the materials to do with this case did go more toward a revocation or something having to do with a denial. in the findings, there are two sentences that i feel very well address that particular issue. if i may read into the record what the sentences are, and it is in at no. 7, toward the bottom, "given that appellant's conduct constitutes grounds for revocation of a permit, the board finds it would make no sense for the city to issue him
a 2010 permit only to turn around and immediately revoke it. the board must construe the police code in a manner so as to avoid a absurd practice." there is one minor modification to what might be a grammatical error, but i intend to uphold the findings. >> your time is over. >> [inaudible] >> there has been a process. you did have time to respond. >> [inaudible] >> will call the sheriff's department of this continues. -- sir, we will call the
sheriff's department if this continues. another have been some revisions already. >> comments from the commissioners. peggy. -- i thank you. president peterson: we did make some changes to paragraph two. commissioner garcia: maybe it is a misreading on my part. 6b leads in its finished state, "san francisco police department police records" -- is that supposed to be states? for me, that would be the correct way to have that worded. >> police reports state. commissioner garcia: ok. i have no other comments.
president peterson: then i will move to adopt these findings with the changes noted. >> on that motion to adopt the findings with the provisions distributed earlier today -- vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner fung: aye. that motion passes. thank you. moving on to the next item, which is item 4b, revocation of taxi medallion and color scheme permit, requesting appeal of 09-144. on july 14, 2010, the board voted 4-1, commissioner hwang
dissenting, to uphold the revocation of. on august 18, the board voted 5- 0 to adopt findings. hold on one second, please. mr. hollis, you may begin. >> i am not very good at public speaking, so basically i am going to read a prepared statement. i am the owner of executive taxi. think for a minute how desperate i had to be to resort to filing a lawsuit against the texas commission. i had tried everything else within reason to try to get them to understand that small-cap companies are important and have a right to exist. i had written numerous letters
to the taxi commissioners. i wrote the supervisors. i even wrote the mayor. i described by the existing rules were unfair and did not work for small cab companies. all cabot companies start small. the taxi commission continue to make rules that only work for companies with 10 or more cabs. bad things will happen to the industry. i made several appearances at taxi commission meetings and pleaded with commissioners to make rules that would treat small cab companies fairly. i was ignored at every turn. the only avenue left to get their attention and make them listen to reason i could see was to file the lawsuit. through stubbornness during the lawsuit, it ended up costing a huge amount of time and paperwork. he was determined to make me pay for having the audacity to challenge the rules. it is overwhelmingly obvious
that i was singled out and that the complaint was filed against me for that reason. if he had not found a discrepancy in my workers comp coverage, she would have kept digging until she found something else. in other words, an amateur or irresponsible way for her to have handled this situation. if it were not for her single mindedness on exacting revenge, this administrative complaint never would have happened. i have shown in the exhibits in my brief the short version of why i wrote the memo to the texas commission on may 17, 2007 about workers' comp insurance. there are a number of other factors that went into making that decision. it would take 10 minutes to explain it in the fall. i had good cause to believe he would immediately sign up for a long-term lease with another cab company, so there was no deception in that memo. i had the state compensation
fund as my workers' comp insurer. i had to pay more than double what is actuarially justified for the risk might cap company is as regards workers' comp claims. i will go into detail if you folks are willing to spend the time. the allegation that i use the tab without a permit is hogwash. i regularly used the not-in- service tab as my personal transportation vehicle. >> thank you. commissioner fung:, shoulder do you have? -- how much longer do you have? >> 30 seconds. her statement made it look like both camps were being used at the same time. and never once stopped to pick up a fair when i was on an errand run and put visible signs in each rear window of the
tab that said "not in service" when i was using it to run errands. i hope i have explained why some things were not previously available. i will answer any questions you might have. my intent was never to disobey rules and laws -- exactly the opposite. i believed i was obey federal labor laws to give my workers the option since it was 100% employee contributory. commissioner fung: one more sentence. >> a revocation or suspension of my permit is grossly unreasonable and the decision should be set aside in its entirety. over 1000 hours of my time and $30,000 of attorneys fees is enough for and an intentional wrongdoing. -- anm unintentional
wrongdoing. >> mr. murray will be afforded with additional time as well. >> good evening. jarvis murray, mta taxis. the only issue here is there is no new material or different evidence that would change the outcome of this matter. this complaint has been going on since march 2009. throughout mr. hollis's brief i did not receive adequate briefing as to why the information he put together was not received at an earlier time throughout all the other briefings for the underlying hearing as well as those here at the board of appeals. much of the evidence that he put together in his brief has already been argued, discussed, and submitted. much of the rationale he has complained of has already been
decided by the hearing officer as well as the board of appeals. mr. hollis during his hearing did not dispute the coverage. he simply tried to rationalize why he did not have workers' compensation coverage. it appears he is now saying he did have the coverage. i think his credibility is in question on these issues. again, these are issues that have already come up. they have already been discussed, decided, and argued. there is no new evidence. no new evidence should be submitted. the rehearing requests should be denied. >> is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner fung:
commissioners, i do see two forms of new information. the question is whether this new information is germane to the case. mr. hollis has presented information regarding difficulty in procuring the pricing of workmen's compensation policies. he did provide evidence of his ability to get it. we do not know what happened within the years prior to the point that he had to drop coverage. that particular item, for me, has not necessarily affected my decision making. the second item was the issues he brought forth in terms of his lawsuits and its relationship to
what he feels is an effort to eliminate small driver companies. we had incomes of that throughout the presentations and briefings before. i do not think that particular item really affected how i voted in light of the other factors that can fourth. i believe mr. hollis actually received considerable response and sympathy from this particular board by not upholding the revocation and only suspending for one year. commissioner garcia: do you have a motion? commissioner fung: based upon the breeze that came forth, i do not find there is new information to warrant a rehearing. president peterson: i will take
that as a motion to deny the request. aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. >> the matter -- the request is denied. thank you. we will move on to item 4c, every caring request regarding 605 kearney st, appeal 10-068, bley versus zoning administrator. on august 18, the board voted 4-1 to uphold the request for release of suspension on the basis that the zoning
administrator did not abuse his discretion. the subject property owner is u- like corporation. we can start with the requestor. >> ladies and gentlemen of the board, as stated in my request for hearing that manifest [unintelligible] of the world class architectural heritage of chinatown, something i have devoted the last 11 years to. i believe this has been done inadvertently. the developer has incorrectly stated that i have not presented new evidence. i have. in the lead up to the past hearing. , this boards a good price has been abused. there is nothing to support the theory is in the lifetime of conditional use authorization that was the city's fault.
it was the developer's fault. the other side has used double talk to create a situation that is not true. the problem with bricks on the ground floor is double talk for the need to submit plans which did not reflect demolition. they've spoken of a delay caused by it preservation of the first floor. i would like to show you photographs of the job site on the overhead and to ask with you exactly which would floor on the first floor has been preserved. the answer is none. since the hearing i have checked with a number of land use lawyers and professionals who have agreed that the lifetime of the variants is not sustained by conditional use. even if we entertain the notion of the three years have been started in february 2007, the final building permit was not issued until june 2010, the fault of which lies with the developer.
there was agreement at the last hearing that the cu had to be extended before its expiration. i would like to add that my final comments in the last hearing related to the misrepresentation of the height of this property. that was a cu issue not related to the suspension. one condition of approval was acceptance by the city and community. it was also represented that there had been no previous opposition to this project, which is not true. san francisco architectural heritage is on record opposing this project. please uphold the law. for the first time in 11 years i have received favorable coverage in the chinese media. there is a long history in the
misrepresentation of this project. please grant as a hearing to allow all to be aired and beloved chinatown to be respected for generations. >> thank you. >> on august 18, the board made the decision to allow construction to resume. thousands of supporters who signed the petition letter, especially the second and five kearny street construction team, which included plumbers, electricians, material suppliers, and more, or happy with the decision which would allow us to finally move forward. however, the building is still sitting in limbo.
the appellant refused to let us move forward. he has presented no new things that were not in the rehearing. he makes no new allegations in his request. all documents were available to him at the time of the original hearing. none of the documentation would have affected the outcome of the decision. the document attached to the rehearing request supports one of the arguments made at the hearing. the clock started ticking wants the -- once the variance ran out. s
course of the project and continues to do so. the appellant repeats the same arguments he made at the original hearing. the or rehearing requests should be denied. thank you again for your continued support in compassion. i want to introduce my architect. >> i was the architect on this project from february 2006 to january 2009. there were questions about how much time we worked on this project. over a three year three months. we spent about 542 hours on that.
there were issues going back and forth between the planning department and building department, so it took an abnormally long time to obtain the permit. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am scott sanchez from the planning department. i do not believe the appellant has raised new information or presented evidence of material in justice for the subject decision made by the board of appeals. we believe the decision was correctly made by the board of appeals to deny the appeal and to allow the stop work order to be rescinded. perhaps i can help clarify some of the issues that were raised here. first, the conditional use was heard and approved by the planning commission on february
2005, february 24, 2005. at the hearing, the zoning administrator according to the record had granted the variance. that variance decision letter was not issued until the during 12, 2007. that started the clock ticking that would allow us until february 2010 to receive the required permit. that was issued in june 2009. it was not issued in june 2010. it was issued within the three years from the issuance of the variance decision letter. in december 2009, a stop work order was issued because of concerns we had with conditions of approval related to preservation issues. there was no discussion about expiration of the entitlement. that was not the concern. the concern was the preservation
components of the approval. we worked for six months with the project sponsor to get those issues resolved. in june of this year we released the stop work order. that is what is on appeal now is the release of the stop work order. now the appellant has raised concerns about the expiration of the entitlement. that was thoughtfully addressed by this board in the last hearing, thoroughly vetted. there is no need to have a rehearing on this item. i am available for any questions. thank you. vice president goh: i do have one question. you mentioned that the variants was not granted until the variance letter is issued. is that written someplace? >> is in the mayor's -- in the variance decision letter, which is also the mechanism by which someone can appeal. in the hearing, it is not
effective until the letter is issued, which carries the 10-day appeal period. when we conduct variance hearings, we are very clear in saying the decision is not effective until the letter is sent, which it has the appeal rights. vice president goh: the language according to the submission by mr. bley is "i hereby grant a variance." >> the letter is the vehicle for that action. that was not made until 2007. vice president goh: thank you. president peterson: is their public comment on this item? -- there public comment on this item? can i see a show of hands? how many people intend to speak on this item?
>> good evening, commissioners. my name is george chang. work with the steel contractor. i want to give you a perspective. commissioner fung: excuse me. you actually work for the permit holder? >> we contacted on the project. commissioner fung: this is public comment for those who have no affiliation to the project. >> i just want to give a quick perspective. commissioner fung: the rules say you cannot. >> this is how you are affect normal families. >> i am sorry. you cannot speak during this time. >> i cannot put food on the table. a local business is suffering financially. >> we cannot hear you now. we were born to have to call the guard it to continue. -- we are going to have to call
the guard if you continue. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- commissioner garc commissioner garcia: speaking to the microphone. >> this project has been reported three times in a chinese newspaper in an article dated august 20. the appellate expressed to the reporter that even though his appeal was overturned by the board on august 18 he will continue to watch that all work going forward is done according to regulation. he hopes the project at 605 will be completed soon.
with that sentiment, we feel this hearing is not called for. we feel a rehearing request should be denied. on august 18, the city planning department, the team from u-like corporation, and the appellate himself admitted that all issues that had been raised benefit to the project in the end. it is now a more secure building. it has preserved the architectural features from 1908. the conditional use has never been revoked. the zoning has not changed. all issues have been resolved. it is now time to allow the construction to resume. this stop work order has been in effect long enough. the delay has been costly. because we are in a struggling economy